adam

The more and more I think about it, with only 5 picks, I don't think we use one on a TE when we signed Bennett and Maneri, and still have Kyle Adams on the roster. Plus ERod can easily slide into that role if needed. To me, we are only going to look at OL, DT, LB, CB, WR, and QB. Any other position is almost a waste unless someone drops.

A good article on draft and trade values: http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2013/4/17...ft-value-charts Just like what many of us have said, the 49ers look like prime candidates for our pick if they want it. They have the picks and the value is good for both teams. One interesting one would be Miami with 42 and 54, would they be willing to do it, and would we be willing to drop 22 slots for #54. We would then have #42, #50, and #54, which actually seems like a really sweet spot in the draft for value vs performance. To me that would almost be like getting 3 new starters, and even possibly 2 OL.

I would not move down 10 to only get a late 3rd and 4th. That if far too lopsided the wrong way. Normally the team moving up takes the hit on the draft value. They would have to include their 2nd late round 4th (133) and a late 6th (198) to make it even. I would take 20 for 30, 92, 127, 133, and 198, and then take 92 and 133 and try to move down into the mid 80's. I would rather look to pick up something in the 30's and no later than the 70's for #20. To me the logical team is still the 49ers at 31 and 74 or 34 and 61.

Possible draft candidate?

More competition. He was actually decent as a rookie, got injured, and never got back to where he was. Can play multiple positions on the line, so he adds some versatility to the bench if he makes the team.

I really like Kyle Long in the 2nd, and he would be a great RT.

Thanks, I made the first one the other day, just never got around to post it until I saw yours, but was doing some more research this morning, and Long and Ryan are really growing on me, and both should be there at those slots.

Yeah, I really don't like 20 unless someone drops, and SF is such a trade target with all their picks (and such few holes). Then I look at if we get a late round first, teams like to move up and grab someone so they don't miss out on the start of Day 2. I actually just swapped Amerson with Long, and Williams with Ryan. Trying to best figure out slot vs need with the best value. For Dysert, I was trying to stay within 10 slots from what nfldraftscout had them ranked: http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dspro...3&genpos=QB They had him at 150 (4-5th round) and I picked him at 153.

I like the first 2 picks, pretty close to right on slot as Brown seems to be rising. Winters may be a little early at 64, Spence is right on slot, and Holmes will probably not last beyond 120-130. Collins is definitely a sleeper pick. Maybe Schwenke at 64 for OC, then Hugh Thornton, JC Tretter, or Aboushi at 153 for OG?

Here is my mock draft scenario, and based on all mock drafts, none of my picks will be correct, however, it would be nice to address these positions: 1. Bears trade #20 to SF for #31, #74 (Rd3), and #157 (Rd5) so SF can draft Kenny Vaccaro at #20. 2. Bears trade #31 and #188 to Philly for #35 (Rd2) and #101 (Rd4) who were looking to move into the late first. 35 (2) - Arthur Brown, LB 50 (2) - Kyle Long, OT (Original Pick: David Amerson, CB) 74 (3) - Brian Schwenke, OC 101 (4) - Marquise Goodwin, WR 117 (4) - Logan Ryan, CB (Original Pick: Brennan Williams, OT) 153 (5) - Zac Dysert, QB 157 (5) - Bennie Logan, DT

He must be a complete homer, Crabtree is 7th and has the same rating as Marshall, lol. Very convenient that his 14-17 are Cobb, Jennings, Nelson, and Jones. A complete joke, just some guy trying to get over 500 comments on his post.

I think it would be a mistake to move up unless someone like Fisher, Joeckel, or Warmack dropped to 15. Also, he could be talking about moving up in later rounds, maybe back into the 3rd.

Gavin Escobar could also be had in the 4th, may be a cheaper option, especially as a #2 TE. Definitely no TE in the first, that would be a waste, just as much as a 3-4 OLB playing DE.

Harvin #2? He has never had 1,000 yards receiving in a single season, and has never had more than 6 TD's in one season? He shouldn't even be in the top 20.

Ok, so what if the following players are available at #20: DJ Fluker (OL), Desmond Trufant (CB), Alec Ogletree (LB), Tyler Eifert (TE), and Sylvester Williams (DT), who do you pick?

No dead money though, we could cut him and save $2,350,000.

Ogletree is the pick at 20, but with all the starting LB positions filled, I would rather go OL, WR, CB, or DT with the first pick. The optimal scenario would be to trade down, add a pick or two, then pick the BPA. I know people hate this, but you have to consider Teo in the 2nd as a possibility.

If we take a WR, especially someone like Austin, is Bennett the odd man out? Can we afford to pay him that much to be a #4?

Sure, I was just giving some examples, but I do think they are likely partners with so many picks. Especially consider Vaccaro could still be there at 20.

That is what I thought, so no way would I take him in the top 35.. To me, the trade partners for our #20 are: SF for 34 and 61 or 31, 74, and 157 CIN for 37 and 53 (we would have to give up a 5th or 6th as well) MIA for 42, 54 JAX for 33, 64 PHI for 36, 67, and 136

What are the projected rounds for all these? It would be interesting to make a mock only from these guys.

I like it but is Warford a first rounder? I haven't seen him that high.

Both.

Yeah I guess I didn't clarify that it was a 5-yr starter out of 7 years, and they only had to start 8 games to qualify. This seems reasonable since it is well beyond the length of rookie contracts and gives them 7 years to be a starter in 5. It is not perfect, but seems like a good stab. You essentially could break this down any way you wanted, based on Pro Bowls, All-Pro teams, etc.

I got it, and based on the analysis, 11 picks from 150-189 would net you one 5-yr starter, almost guaranteed. The odds of getting 1 with each pick is 8.9%, so if you had 11 picks in that group you would have 11*8.9%= 97.9%. That is all I am saying. So collectively, to move back and get more picks (depending on where they fall) can give you better odds in finding a star, especially with certain picks. So for us, 20 could turn in 30-something and 70-something basically increasing our odds by 22.9% (again I know this is not the exact number but close).